Why Sisters of Battle should get a stat increase

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**JNAProductions**

Perhaps it might be prudent to gather all the suggestions for improving Sisters, and figure out which ones would be good to implement.

I've seen A2 WS3+ brought up a decent amount, and I think that'd be a good (but kinda minor) change.

**VladimirHerzog**

JNAProductions wrote:
Perhaps it might be prudent to gather all the suggestions for improving Sisters, and figure out which ones would be good to implement.

I've seen A2 WS3+ brought up a decent amount, and I think that'd be a good (but kinda minor) change.

Honestly, that change would do nothing, so i'm all for GW implementing it.

They really just need their guns to be better

**JNAProductions**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Perhaps it might be prudent to gather all the suggestions for improving Sisters, and figure out which ones would be good to implement.

I've seen A2 WS3+ brought up a decent amount, and I think that'd be a good (but kinda minor) change.

Honestly, that change would do nothing, so i'm all for GW implementing it.

They really just need their guns to be better

It'd help them bully weak units off objectives, at least.

Currently, a 10-gal squad of Battle Sisters does 12 S3 AP0 D1 attacks or 9 S3 AP0 D1 attacks and 2 S4 AP-2 D1 attacks. Hitting on 4s across the board.

That's 6 hits, 3 wounds, 2 failed saves on a GEQ squad.
Or 9/2 hits, 9/4 wounds, 18/12 or 1.5 failed saves plus 1 hit, 2/3 wounds, 2/3 failed saves for 2.17 dead GEQ.

Using the Power Weapon profile for the Superior, there's still a nearly 1/3 chance of killing only one GEQ model. Meaning that if they lose one Sister, or just fail to get all 10 on the objective, it stays contested.

Upping them to WS3+ and A2 (A3 on Power Weapon, A4 on Chainsword) gives the following:

18 attacks
12 hits
6 wounds
4 dead GEQ
plus
3 attacks
2 hits
4/3 wounds
4/3 dead GEQ

Better than 80% odds of killing at least 4 GEQ, though admittedly only a 2.12% chance of wiping a full 10-strong squad.

**ERJAK**

Pyroalchi wrote:
Regarding the "in novel XY" argument: there always is a certain limit in how well fluff can be transformed into tabletop rules before it gets ridiculous.
It's the same "problem" I see with people complaining that Marines have problems to single handedly wipe out whole Guardsmen squads on the tabletop when they can in the fluff: That would be possible if on the contrary the "horde factions" would get the numerical superiority they would have in the fluff. And that would (in my opinion) require dialing the regeneration mechanics of Guard, Genestealers and Nids up even more or adjust prices in a way that the elite factions have extremely small numbers on the board.

In other words: if you argue that sisters should have drastical advantages over Guardsmen/Gaunts/whatever the lowliest Stealer guys are called because "the novels say so" I as Guardplayer could argue that I want off the board artillery strikes from friendly regiments a mile away because "the fluff says so". Or that prices should be adjusted to reflect that the regiments of Hive worlds like Cadia likely have more tanks than there are space marines in the galaxy. But I think that won't be fun.

But that is just my opinion on the fluff argument

____________________________________________

Back on track: I too think buffing SoBs to two attacks, WS3+ would be fitting. But I'm not sure that would really solve the problem mentioned. I mean: looking at lets say 20 Infantry squad dudes (110 if I'm not mistaken) against 10 battle sisters. If they get into melee they would still only kill something in the ball park of (21 attacks * 2/3 (WS) *1/2 (wounding step) *2/3 (armor save)) ~ 5 Guardsmen a fight phase, needing multiple rounds to remove that squad - only for it to be regenerated. So it still wouldn't be enough to avoid beeing tar pitted.
But of couse: it would be a good start.

Wasting their stat budget on melee is stupid. Especially because you're worried about tar-pitting. BSS ARE the tarpit.

Sisters are highly specialized. Outside of the suits, Stuff that's good at melee is ONLY good at melee. Stuff that's good at shooting is ONLY good at shooting.

The problem the index has is that stuff that's supposed to be at melee...isn't good at melee and stuff that's supposed to be good at shooting...isn't good at shooting.

For BSS, We need to go back to 4 special weapons, or 2 specials and 2 heavies per squad of 10.

'But what about dominions?' Give them back the +1 bolters and then give them an actually useful special rule like 'Holy Trinity: If this unit has at least 4 models all equipped with the same special weapon option (Stormbolter, Flamer, Meltagun) models equipped with that weapon gain one of the following rules based on what weapon they have: Artificer Stormbolter: Devasating Wounds, Flamer: Blast, Meltagun: Anti-Monster+Anti-Vehicle 3+.

Give every melee unit in the book +1 attack (+2 for characters). Let Sacresants have 2 character attaches and give them back their 2+ standard save.

Give Retributors their old Armorium Cherub rules. Also, let a canoness attach to them.

Let Preachers and Missionaries attach to Repentia.

Buff the Exorcist missiles to -3 AP and buff the Castigator Battle Cannon to S12 and -2 AP and the Autocannons to -2 AP also.

Point drops to already competent units like Mortifiers, Penitent Engines, Seraphim, Immolators.

Then give us a goddam Detachment Bonus that isn't terrible. Tyranids got the same detachment bonus in an army that is WAY better at using it and still looked at it like someone peed in their cereal.

**ProfSrlojohn**

Pyroalchi wrote:

In other words: if you argue that sisters should have drastical advantages over Guardsmen/Gaunts/whatever the lowliest Stealer guys are called because "the novels say so" I as Guardplayer could argue that I want off the board artillery strikes from friendly regiments a mile away because "the fluff says so". Or that prices should be adjusted to reflect that the regiments of Hive worlds like Cadia likely have more tanks than there are space marines in the galaxy. But I think that won't be fun.

But that is just my opinion on the fluff argument

Imma be honest, that sounds awesome. After all, 40k is a limited space in a larger battle (in theory anyway), so why shouldn't that be a feature? The Inquisition books of 3rd edition had a orbital strike as a Heavy support choice, I don't see why guard couldn't have off-board artillery. Maybe I'm weird, but I would rather they lean in *more* into what makes the factions unique in the lore and on the table than not like they have been over the past couple editions. I understand that's harder to balance, but I feel like some sacrifices should be able to be made. These surely a limit, but if in order to give sisters better stats we need to give guard off-board artillery i'm all for it. Give GSC a way to pre-place demo charges as an area-denial method rather than chucking them out of a single character, bring custodes down to less than 20 models on the table, but so powerful they're like killing a vehicle (I played against a homebrew for 10th like this and it was great fun), Let tau set up automated turrets pre-game or other established assets like the lore, and more.

**Pyroalchi**

@ ProfSrlojohn: It sounds cool, I agree, but I think things would go weird and unfun pretty fast. And more importantly the fluff is all over the place in novels etc.
For example you have things like Caiphas cain on one hand killing an Ork Warboss (with a great bit of luck) single handedly with a laspistol to the eye and the very same Caiphas cain being scared out of his mind by a simple Necron Warrior.

On the other hand you have things like the SoB from the mentioned clip killing Skorpek Destroyers.

Sometimes Marines just plow through hundreds of lesser enemies, sometimes an (admittedly damaged) Chaos Dreadnaught is killed by an improvised IED build from a lasgun in one of the Gaunts Ghosts Novels. etc.

**BrianDavion**

Pyroalchi wrote:
@ ProfSrlojohn: It sounds cool, I agree, but I think things would go weird and unfun pretty fast. And more importantly the fluff is all over the place in novels etc.
For example you have things like Caiphas cain on one hand killing an Ork Warboss (with a great bit of luck) single handedly with a laspistol to the eye and the very same Caiphas cain being scared out of his mind by a simple Necron Warrior.

On the other hand you have things like the SoB from the mentioned clip killing Skorpek Destroyers.

Sometimes Marines just plow through hundreds of lesser enemies, sometimes an (admittedly damaged) Chaos Dreadnaught is killed by an improvised IED build from a lasgun in one of the Gaunts Ghosts Novels. etc.

to be fair Cain's scared out of his mind by EVERYTHING

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Perhaps it might be prudent to gather all the suggestions for improving Sisters, and figure out which ones would be good to implement.

I've seen A2 WS3+ brought up a decent amount, and I think that'd be a good (but kinda minor) change.

Honestly, that change would do nothing, so i'm all for GW implementing it.

They really just need their guns to be better
It'd help them bully weak units off objectives, at least.

Currently, a 10-gal squad of Battle Sisters does 12 S3 AP0 D1 attacks or 9 S3 AP0 D1 attacks and 2 S4 AP-2 D1 attacks. Hitting on 4s across the board.

That's 6 hits, 3 wounds, 2 failed saves on a GEQ squad.
Or 9/2 hits, 9/4 wounds, 18/12 or 1.5 failed saves plus 1 hit, 2/3 wounds, 2/3 failed saves for 2.17 dead GEQ.

Using the Power Weapon profile for the Superior, there's still a nearly 1/3 chance of killing only one GEQ model. Meaning that if they lose one Sister, or just fail to get all 10 on the objective, it stays contested.

Upping them to WS3+ and A2 (A3 on Power Weapon, A4 on Chainsword) gives the following:

18 attacks
12 hits
6 wounds
4 dead GEQ
plus
3 attacks
2 hits
4/3 wounds
4/3 dead GEQ

Better than 80% odds of killing at least 4 GEQ, though admittedly only a 2.12% chance of wiping a full 10-strong squad.

I wouldn't up the WS, but I would give them a BP/CS option on the Sisters Squad similar to Assault Intercessors (I think each army should have at least one shooty and fighty basic troop except the ones it wouldn't be thematic - Tau, Khorne daemons etc) and give them 3-4A chainswords.

**A.T.**

Pyroalchi wrote:
In other words: if you argue that sisters should have drastical advantages over Guardsmen/Gaunts/whatever the lowliest Stealer guys are called because "the novels say so" I as Guardplayer could argue that I want off the board artillery strikes from friendly regiments a mile away because "the fluff says so".

So the old school master of ordnance from 5th-7th edition?

**Pyroalchi**

A.T. wrote:
Pyroalchi wrote:
In other words: if you argue that sisters should have drastical advantages over Guardsmen/Gaunts/whatever the lowliest Stealer guys are called because "the novels say so" I as Guardplayer could argue that I want off the board artillery strikes from friendly regiments a mile away because "the fluff says so".
So the old school master of ordnance from 5th-7th edition?

That was before my time...

**PenitentJake**

I like WS3 A2, but I'd sacrifice one of those for a melta buff.

I think that it's also worth pointing out that without seeing other detachment rules, we don't know how well any of the proposals we are making will work.

For example, basic sisters get an extra attack and a WS buff. And then the "Not Bloody Rose, just a detachment" rules come out and the army get full rerolls on wounds in Melee.

Or we buff melta, and the Holy Trinity detachment makes that oppressive.

There are some changes that could be made that would be less likely to have these kind of impacts- fixing some of the more egregious character attachment issues... But that's also easier to do in a dex than a data slate.

**alextroy**

Nothing about the army should be solved by a detachment rule. The army should function for all detachments with those giving a specific focus and feel. There should be no Holy Trinity detachment to fix shooting nor a Holy Rage detachment to fix close combat.

**waefre_1**

A.T. wrote:
Pyroalchi wrote:
In other words: if you argue that sisters should have drastical advantages over Guardsmen/Gaunts/whatever the lowliest Stealer guys are called because "the novels say so" I as Guardplayer could argue that I want off the board artillery strikes from friendly regiments a mile away because "the fluff says so".
So the old school master of ordnance from 5th-7th edition?

Sort of, though I would expect it to be more like 1d6/2d6/2d3 Bassie shots per turn rather than just one. Guard arty leans more "dear grid coordinates", and IIRC that one shot tended to wander off the board edge or into empty terrain too often to give the appropriate feel.

**Karol**

PenitentJake wrote:
I like WS3 A2, but I'd sacrifice one of those for a melta buff.

I think that it's also worth pointing out that without seeing other detachment rules, we don't know how well any of the proposals we are making will work.

For example, basic sisters get an extra attack and a WS buff. And then the "Not Bloody Rose, just a detachment" rules come out and the army get full rerolls on wounds in Melee.

Or we buff melta, and the Holy Trinity detachment makes that oppressive.

There are some changes that could be made that would be less likely to have these kind of impacts- fixing some of the more egregious character attachment issues... But that's also easier to do in a dex than a data slate.

Melta, if it is suppose to be a functioning weapon type in 10th ed, needs a core rules change though. Right now it is as useful as lascanons were in 8th and 9th ed. And in a world where the eldar we have right now, no rules that GW can invent for SoB would be opresive enough to break the game. They would have to do something like DW+Leathel combo on bolters on a +4, for a rule become a problem. Right now Repentia could be given a basic strenght of 5 and it would marginaly affect the meta.

**ERJAK**

alextroy wrote:
Nothing about the army should be solved by a detachment rule. The army should function for all detachments with those giving a specific focus and feel. There should be no Holy Trinity detachment to fix shooting nor a Holy Rage detachment to fix close combat.

Not 100% true.

THEME lists can be solved by detachment rule. The Nid codex's Vanguard Infiltrator detachment solves an entire army being sneaky bugs pretty well.

**alextroy**

ERJAK wrote:
alextroy wrote:
Nothing about the army should be solved by a detachment rule. The army should function for all detachments with those giving a specific focus and feel. There should be no Holy Trinity detachment to fix shooting nor a Holy Rage detachment to fix close combat.

Not 100% true.

THEME lists can be solved by detachment rule. The Nid codex's Vanguard Infiltrator detachment solves an entire army being sneaky bugs pretty well.

Yes, but it doesn't fix Tyranids. All the units in the codex don't become bad without the detachment. The units the detachment focuses on aren't bad without it either. It allows a theme within the army to work, but doesn't allow an otherwise bad faction (the word I should have used) to work because of it's rules.

**BrianDavion**

alextroy wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
alextroy wrote:
Nothing about the army should be solved by a detachment rule. The army should function for all detachments with those giving a specific focus and feel. There should be no Holy Trinity detachment to fix shooting nor a Holy Rage detachment to fix close combat.

Not 100% true.

THEME lists can be solved by detachment rule. The Nid codex's Vanguard Infiltrator detachment solves an entire army being sneaky bugs pretty well.
Yes, but it doesn't fix Tyranids. All the units in the codex don't become bad without the detachment. The units the detachment focuses on aren't bad without it either. It allows a theme within the army to work, but doesn't allow an otherwise bad faction (the word I should have used) to work because of it's rules.

Maybe but sometimes theme lists struggle due to the rules not really being designed with those themes, some theme lists are definatly going to still suck no matter how you do it, but other theme lists might actually work nicely with the new detachments.

**Jarms48**

BrianDavion wrote:
Oddly I'm gonna agree with Karol here, the problem with Sisters isn't their base stat line, it's that their special rules SUCK

This, they need better rule and melta needs to not suck.

**Breton**

PenitentJake wrote:
I like WS3 A2, but I'd sacrifice one of those for a melta buff.

Melta is its own issue, and game wide not faction specific. The change to Sisters fight phase should be independent of Melta. Others have tried to point to sisters as Stormtroopers, but I look at them as Stormtroopers with a Space Marine armoury. So give them stormtrooper stats, and SM Weapons - and the A are now on the weapons, so start there and maybe take one or two steps back on the A to represent the Stormtrooper/Human statline.

**BrianDavion**

Breton wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
I like WS3 A2, but I'd sacrifice one of those for a melta buff.

Melta is its own issue, and game wide not faction specific. The change to Sisters fight phase should be independent of Melta. Others have tried to point to sisters as Stormtroopers, but I look at them as Stormtroopers with a Space Marine armoury. So give them stormtrooper stats, and SM Weapons - and the A are now on the weapons, so start there and maybe take one or two steps back on the A to represent the Stormtrooper/Human statline.

Melta is a game wide issue to a degree but sisters are hit harder by it then marines or guard by virtue of not having alternatives

**PenitentJake**

Also:

I think it's fair to make melta stronger for sisters the way they did storm bolters and flamers; this wouldn't prevent them from ALSO addressing Melta game-wide, but when your faction's identity is based in part upon the Trinity, being the experts of those weapons and more proficient with them is fluffy AF.

I personally don't want to solve sisters anti-tank problems by adding lascannons, missile launchers, etc. to their list. Don't get me wrong, they can go ahead and do that- I just don't want them to make them the only solution to our difficulties with vehicles, because I'd like the choice to not field them.

**Breton**

PenitentJake wrote:
Also:

I think it's fair to make melta stronger for sisters the way they did storm bolters and flamers; because I'd like the choice to not field them.

Also game wide in my view - Salamanders are also Flamer/Melta fans, among other units if not factions. These things need to be viable outside of Sisters as well.

**PenitentJake**

Breton wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Also:

I think it's fair to make melta stronger for sisters the way they did storm bolters and flamers; because I'd like the choice to not field them.

Also game wide in my view - Salamanders are also Flamer/Melta fans, among other units if not factions. These things need to be viable outside of Sisters as well.

You did a weird edit on the piece you quoted- the things I want the choice not to use are the SM weapons that someone suggested adding; you made it look like I want the choice to not lean into the Trinity. I don't mind if GW adds Lascannons or Missile Launchers to the range, but I don't want to use them if GW does because it won't match my headcannon.

Regarding changes to Melta being game-wide vs. Sisters specific, I think GW could do both; buff it game wide, but then give an additional benefit to Sisters. As for Salamanders, giving them an extra buff on top of game-wide stuff is fine too... And it would be cool if their buff was equal to but different from the one Sisters get.

Finally, I feel like the biggest buffs need to be the general ones and keep the faction specific ones impactful, but not rely on those to do the heavy lifting.

**alextroy**

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Melta rule. The rule is fine as it is at making such weapons more dangerous within half range.

The problem is that GW didn't do a good job with the Meltagun and Multi-Melta weapons stats given the massive Toughness increases for Vehicles. Most Vehicles gained 2-3 points of Toughness while the MG and MM went up 1 point of Strength. This means formerly T7 vehicles are now T9 (or even T10) reducing the effectiveness of these guns (now S9) by 16% or 33%. Reducing the range on the MM was an additional hit to the weapon.

Given this case, it might be enough to jump increase the Strength of the Meltagun, Multi-Melta, and the poor Inferno Pistol (still S8) to 10. The puts them back to wounding in 3+ against the formerly T7 vehicles and to 4+ against all the now T10 vehicles (many that used to be T7). Vehicles that are now T10 or greater used to be T8 or higher and GW was aiming to make them more resilient against AT by putting them this high now.

**Tyel**

So who had Sisters on a 64% win rate and best faction in the game.

(Yes, I realise its kind of contrived on 5 players, don't hurt me Erjak).

**Dudeface**

Tyel wrote:
So who had Sisters on a 64% win rate and best faction in the game.

(Yes, I realise its kind of contrived on 5 players, don't hurt me Erjak).

I mean it's still less anecdotal than "in the novel I read celestine was amazing!"

**Totalwar1402**

Dudeface wrote:
Tyel wrote:
So who had Sisters on a 64% win rate and best faction in the game.

(Yes, I realise its kind of contrived on 5 players, don't hurt me Erjak).

I mean it's still less anecdotal than "in the novel I read celestine was amazing!"

You put a premium on every time Space marines are uberman killing Imperial Guard. Yet ignore repeated statements that a single boltshell can kill a marine and that their armour can’t take any hits from anything past a lasgun.

Also it’s not the only novel where Living Saints are depicted as powerful. It’s all of them. That’s a pattern. Whereas there’s plenty of books where: three heavy bolters manned by militia kill fifty Night Lords and marine gets head taken off by overcharged lasgun. But those get conveniently left to one side when we’re discussing about if Sisters should be able to kill marines.

If the books has Celestine, Demonifuge and Sabbat wrecking Chaos I don’t see why they should be mediocre fighters in the rules to keep the faction in its lane. Those characters should kill generic Chaos Lords.

Also in Pariah cinematic they had one sister fight against twenty zombies single handedly including in close combat. Emphasising that she’s wearing power armour to boost strength. Explain how a one attack str3 model hitting on 4 does that? That doesn’t scream one of the worst close combat profiles in the game.

**vipoid**

The fluff only counts when it shows Space Marines as the greatest warriors in the universe ever with no equal in any race.

If fluff depicts any other race or character as strong, it should be ignored because fluff isn't allowed to influence game design other than Space Marines.

**Kanluwen**

By that logic, Total, Kasrkin should be flipping taking out Titans on the regular.

**Dudeface**

Totalwar1402 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Tyel wrote:
So who had Sisters on a 64% win rate and best faction in the game.

(Yes, I realise its kind of contrived on 5 players, don't hurt me Erjak).

I mean it's still less anecdotal than "in the novel I read celestine was amazing!"

You put a premium on every time Space marines are uberman killing Imperial Guard. Yet ignore repeated statements that a single boltshell can kill a marine and that their armour can’t take any hits from anything past a lasgun.

Also it’s not the only novel where Living Saints are depicted as powerful. It’s all of them. That’s a pattern. Whereas there’s plenty of books where: three heavy bolters manned by militia kill fifty Night Lords and marine gets head taken off by overcharged lasgun. But those get conveniently left to one side when we’re discussing about if Sisters should be able to kill marines.

If the books has Celestine, Demonifuge and Sabbat wrecking Chaos I don’t see why they should be mediocre fighters in the rules to keep the faction in its lane. Those characters should kill generic Chaos Lords.

Also in Pariah cinematic they had one sister fight against twenty zombies single handedly including in close combat. Emphasising that she’s wearing power armour to boost strength. Explain how a one attack str3 model hitting on 4 does that? That doesn’t scream one of the worst close combat profiles in the game.

Nobody (me included) is ignoring the claim marines get killed by bolters, the point is bolters aren't designed to kill marines in the fluff since that's our yardstick. Beyond that yes, regular humans do kill marines, sisters kill marines, ripper swarms kill marines. I'm not sure what your point is?

Sisters are humans with good armour on. In Pariah Nexus she kills 2-3 brainless necron zombies by hand, the rest are killed by bolter. These zombies that are such a threat that they left an human guardswoman sat on a rock watching. You're also ignoring that the sisters are decimated, she seems to believe she is one of the last on the world.

Forrix was an Iron Warriors chaos lord who wasn't a big fan of mutations overly and he solo killed a warhound titan if you want to play stupid fluff one-upping.

Or instead we can revert to numbers and theme to army building to define what a sister of battle should be - a human (s3/t3) in power armour (3+) that fights better than most humans (BS 3+ - can concede WS 3+), but is limited by those contraints (1A). They also get superior equipment (lasgun vs boltgun).